Where The Newspaper Stands

July 25, 2003

The unsurplus

When counting beans, don't forget the needs

Big picture. Little picture.

Little picture first.

As a fiscal "nuts-and-bolts" executive, Mark Warner has been true to the promise of his business background. He continues to squeeze more product out of fewer dollars and has brought notable enthusiasm to the task.

Notable, because it has been more than a decade since Virginia had a governor interested in the details of government and how it actually functions.

Warner was out once again this week touting savings achieved from reforms to the state's procurement program, saying that the state will "conservatively" save $25 million to $30 million each year, thanks to more favorable prices and value on goods the state uses every day.

"I believe we must re-engineer the business practices of government to achieve fundamental and permanent change," Warner said.

Outstanding. Combined with other reforms -- last year Warner eliminated redundant information technology services by consolidating the state's various programs -- the state continues to be well served by this administration.

Now the big picture.

It's basically awful, despite the news that after cutting the state budget by 6 billion bucks, Virginia ended its fiscal year with a modest budget "surplus."

There is no surplus. Not in the broader sense. Not in the sense that matters.

Measured by the state's support of its most vital commitments -- K-12 education, higher education, mental health, public safety, indigent and elderly health care and transportation -- Virginia sits like a lump in a big, fat deficit hole.

We are, in short, getting nowhere fast. Virginia's economy, failing the billions pumped into it by federal spending via the Pentagon, would resemble something you might find in Central America (all apologies to Honduras and neighbors).

Just as Warner was out celebrating the "surplus," in fact, officials were saying that the state's share of basic education funding must be increased by a half-billion dollars in the next two-year budget cycle to sustain existing services.

Which is another way of saying we need substantial spending hikes just to tread water.

The mantra, of course, is that Virginia, with some of the lowest state taxes in the country, need only lower them some more and -- voila! -- economic growth. That has been the promise of the "fiscal conservatism" celebrated far and wide by both Republican and Democratic officeholders and the all-utility excuse to funnel tax breaks to favored constituencies.

It's killing Virginia's future.

It would be one thing if true conservatism governed Virginia. It does not. Past investments -- in the state's colleges and universities, for instance -- have been abused and current needs neglected. Tuition costs soar and legislators point fingers at everyone but themselves.

The pattern applies to infrastructure, as well. The state is choking on its own growth, with insufficient support of its road network and little restraint imposed upon development.

Health care? The conditions under which the elderly and poor spend their last days on earth -- which are shaped by the state's commitment to Medicaid -- hardly even register on the political radar.

Such is the state of "conservatism" in Virginia.

So take some satisfaction in the fact that our current governor has the sense and determination to do more with less. He tinkers with the machinery well.

But the overall, big picture -- where Virginia, as a society, grows economically stronger and culturally vital -- remains discouraging.

NASA

Great safety office, but larger questions unanswered

NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe came to Hampton to announce that the Langley Research Center will be headquarters for a new office meant to formalize how the agency deals with safety issues. The Engineering and Safety Center is part of NASA's response to the Columbia disaster and the lessons learned from the investigation of the space shuttle's crash.

Talk about a mixed bag.

The good news is that the new Engineering and Safety Center ought to strengthen Langley's overall role in NASA, where space exploration gets far more dollars and far more attention than aeronautics research, which is Langley's traditional area of expertise. When budget axes come out -- and they will if history is a guide -- Langley will have a new role to help define its already high value.

Over the years Langley has demonstrated its ability to analyze accidents and safety problems, so in that regard, its selection as headquarters for the new center was a natural. And it's a good thing that the center is outside the usual circle of space mission bureaucracies. The Columbia investigation suggests that one of NASA's problems was a culture that discouraged aggressive, independent questioning of safety issues.